Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Yes, I would have thought that this was obvious. In the electric universe model gravity is far too weak to explain how planets, stars etc are formed or how they move etc. The original poster doesn't seem to understand even the basics of the EU model, creates a fantasy explanation/role for "electric gravity" in his mind and then proceeds to show that his fantasy is nonsense. Hopefully he learnt something useful in the process.

Thanks.Judging from the growing number of revisits to the link I think that people are beginning to get a feel for the complexity behind Coulomb gravity between two bodies, not to speak of the complex web of gravity strings between each and every body in our universe, as demonstrated by the Ligo gravity chirp detector.

Hi Catonic,Bob Ham took this seriously and made a proper analysis. So far You have not added anything of value.

Errr....pointing out that the EU model doesn't rely upon gravity, "electric" or otherwise to explain things that the Newtonian theory of gravity relies upon is "nothing"??Bob Ham's analysis is reductionist, he doesn't seem to be able to comprehend that the forces that affect the movements of planets, stars etc are fundamentally different in the EU model than they are in the Newtonian or Einsteinian models.This is a very common mistake when academics/scientists become aware of another model. They bring over, without even thinking about it, their old patterns of thinking and assumptions and then try to understand the new model from that perspective. Bob Ham made a "proper" analysis from a Newtonian reductionist perspective, not from an EU perspective.To try and make it clearer for you, there are good reasons why the EU people have guests at their conferences such as AP David, Stephen Crothers, Tom Wilson, Peter Moddel etc. Their model questions fundamental issues of what science is, not just the role of electricity and the role of gravity etc in the Universe.By reductionist so called "scientific" standards Bob Ham may have taken "this seriously and made a proper analysis" but by EU standards he just confirmed that he hasn't even begun to grasp what the EU model is about.In my opinion, of course.

Catonic wrote:... pointing out that the EU model doesn't rely upon gravity, "electric" or otherwise ...

Thanks.1. Explain to me how the EU model makes the world go around without the need for gravity of any kind ?2. Why then would an EU profile like Thornhill put his name behind a version of the Sansbury electrical dipole gravity theory ? 3. I agree that trying to sell a new theory to somebody who already thinks he knows is like challenging his religion.

Catonic wrote:... pointing out that the EU model doesn't rely upon gravity, "electric" or otherwise ...

Thanks.1. Explain to me how the EU model makes the world go around without the need for gravity of any kind ?2. Why then would an EU profile like Thornhill put his name behind a version of the Sansbury electrical dipole gravity theory ? 3. I agree that trying to sell a new theory to somebody who already thinks he knows is like challenging his religion.

Bengt, I'm just an interested observer and cannot speak for the EU people so please take that into account.1. In this regard I would compare star/sun formation in the EU model with the conventional "gravity" model.In the EU model stars are formed in a "pinch formation" in a Birkeland current, as far as I know, whilst gravity causes star formation in the conventional model. There are a number of videos by Wal Thornhill and others such as Dr Michael Clarage of the SAFIRE project which claim that plasma which exists thruout the Universe fuels and influences star/planet life cycles, dynamics etc, plus the electrical relationships between such bodies.See, for example, Stars: Electrically Connected and Externally Powered https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT3DWZBKoRk2. As far as I know (which is not much , Wal Thornhill's use of the electric dipole gravity theory applies to the behaviour, inertia and movement or dynamics of electrons, protons and neutrons at the atomic level, is 10 to the 39th power weaker than the electric force at the atomic level and also has a roughly correspondingly weak effect at the planetary level. That is, his "version" of the Sansbury theory is vastly different from the original, assuming that it is even valid or meaningful to say that his "electric dipole theory" relates in any thing other than a superficial way to Sansbury's. The context is fundamentally different for a start.For example, in this article by Wal Thornhill, http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/ he states as follows:"However, it leaves the question of what the speed of light means. This is where I part company with Sansbury and others who explain it in terms of a delayed response to an instantaneous signal. In my view, the crucial difference between the near-infinite speed of the electric force and the relative dawdle of light on any cosmic scale is that the electric force is longitudinal while light is an oscillating transverse signal moving slowly through a medium."

The bold emphasis is mine not his.When ever I read about "longitudinal electric force(s)" I think of Tesla and that means we are in a very different Universe, if you get my drift.

3. I see that you have made a substantial contribution to the Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation thread on this forum. Clearly this is a matter which you have given serious consideration. IMHO, the whole context and fundamental dynamics of the plasma/EU theory are so different from anything that has existed within physics/astronomy/science/cosmology before that it requires a complete reset of our most fundamental beliefs that arose from our schools/universities and studies.As painful as that is, I believe that it is necessary.That is how I see it anyway.All the best to you.

I wanted to add this as an edit but I was too late or something so I will add it here. Bob Ham's comments about Wal Thornhill's views or writings on gravity are an example of someone who has not faced up to or understood the fundamental differences between a concept such as electricity or magnetism or plasma or atoms or gravity or essentially everything in conventional "science" and the plasma/EU model. Hence his criticisms just seem irrelevant and ill-thought out mis-understandings to most/many followers of the EU model. Similarly, the critics of Tesla invariably show that they have not grasped how radically different his understanding of everything he talked about was from what they believe and hence their criticisms of Tesla appear facile and irrelevant to those who take Tesla seriously and believe he was onto things of fundamental importance to all aspects of science.

Nobody knows what gravity is. Some say it's "settled science" with Einstein's warping space-time nonsense, but most people are still searching for the "truth". So Wal's attempt to explain gravity is as good as anyone else's.

But, like I said, it's good on the surface of the Earth, but how would this work between Earth and the Moon, or between the planets and the Sun? That's the important part missing in his theory. His reluctance to talk about it clearly shows he has no idea... That's what I don't like about EU. There's always something missing. It's a lot of ideas just thrown in without coherence. Many more questions than answers. And when you try getting some answers, they're just ignored.

Each and every body in space is pulling on every other body, depending on masses/distances^2. To suggest that there should be no motion at all, i.e. a totally static universe in such an unstable situation is out of the question. Motion is subsequently unavoidable. At the same time conservation of energy and momentum results in restless but energy efficient elliptical orbits.I don't think that planetary motions present any mystery, I also don't think anybody is questioning that there is gravity the consistency of which depends only on m*m/r^2 which rules out all forms of local or dynamic particulate or plasmatic conditions. The question is; what is the mechanism behind gravity. My answer is; It is the same Coulomb force mechanism which causes strong force and atomic&molecular bonds but with so many charged players involved that manual calculations can only handle a couple of them and my high end workstation can only handle to simulate a handfull of them. The final proof is a case for the Coulomb gravity model and a supercomputer reaching far beyond the human mind.

That's what I don't like about EU. There's always something missing. It's a lot of ideas just thrown in without coherence. Many more questions than answers. And when you try getting some answers, they're just ignored.

You criticize the EU for not knowing all the answers, or not explaining everything fully.I suggest you watch a short video of part of a Richard Feynman lecture."Knowing versus Understanding"It is about 5-1/2 minutes long with an analogy relative to this discussion at the end.

That's what I don't like about EU. There's always something missing. It's a lot of ideas just thrown in without coherence. Many more questions than answers. And when you try getting some answers, they're just ignored.

You criticize the EU for not knowing all the answers, or not explaining everything fully.I suggest you watch a short video of part of a Richard Feynman lecture."Knowing versus Understanding"It is about 5-1/2 minutes long with an analogy relative to this discussion at the end.

That's what I don't like about EU. There's always something missing. It's a lot of ideas just thrown in without coherence. Many more questions than answers. And when you try getting some answers, they're just ignored.

You criticize the EU for not knowing all the answers, or not explaining everything fully.I suggest you watch a short video of part of a Richard Feynman lecture."Knowing versus Understanding"It is about 5-1/2 minutes long with an analogy relative to this discussion at the end.

The EU ideas are still being figured out in different ways by different people.Once you accept the notion that there is electricity in space, and quite a lot of it, you will see things in a new light.

Jack

I do accept there is electricity in space. That's not the problem. But the ones making the claims have a lot of questions to answer. There are too many websites claiming to believe the universe is electric, but they don't all agree.